[Union Of V]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot's Debates, vol. 3 "The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution."

I can't find this quote in context, but it sounds from the use of the word "disarmed" that he is refering to a government taking the right of rebellion away from the people, which is what the 2nd Ammendment was intended to prevent. Not the unconditional right to bear arms.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

Important caveat here is the assumption that the people are peaceable citizens. Past events have proved all but that.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

Finally, the overarching problem with these quotes is that 18th century reasoning, no matter how true, is only valid in context ie in the 18th century. At this time people had slaves for Christ's sake. They simply could not make laws for a society two centuries away. It's best to rely on current knowledge than past reasoning, no matter how valid that reasoning was at the time.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

And while yes there are idiots, I would like to point out that statistically, physicians kill more people than gun owners.

As well as BigMole's point that physicians are reducing deaths overall, they are doing a highly difficult and precise job that has a very slim safety margin. They undertake that work because of a patient's need. They know what risk they're taking.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Because we don't live in a nanny state. A few people being retarded is not justification to take guns away from everyone. Thats the equivalent of giving the entire class detention because some kid got his head suck in a chair.

In all honesty, if we applied that mentality to everything, we should ban cars, alcohol, all over the counter and prescription drugs, food, pools, and all electrical devices, unless each is given to us and operated for us by a trained government agent.

Firstly Reductio Ad Absurdum. You can take away some without taking away a lot.

Secondly, I'm calling for regulation, not banning. A few people being retarded and causing harm to others is definitely enough to regulate the use of guns. People do stupid things in cars, so you need a driving license to be able to drive. People did stupid things in aircraft, so you need several licenses to fly one. People do very stupid things with heavy machinery, so you have to be properly trained to operate it. Why in God's name should any "adult" person be able to simply walk to the shop and buy a gun? It simply makes no sense - if necessary practices require regulation, why are recreational pursuits open for every idiot to take part in?